Govt loses New Forest National Park boundaries dispute

The government has lost its dispute with landowners over the boundary of the New Forest national park. The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs against a High Court decision to overturn his designation order, which included part of a large family-owned estate in the national park. In November 2005, Meyrick Estate Management, which manages the 6,000-acre Hinton Estate on behalf of the Meyrick family, won a legal challenge against the former secretary of state’s confirmation of the order drawing the boundary. The inclusion of the estate within the national park placed severe development restrictions on the estate and the family’s ancestral home, Hinton Park. Justice Sullivan J ruled that the secretary’s inspector had misapplied a test contained in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 that required an area to have “opportunities for open-air recreation” in order for it to be included. He said that the inspector had used a “watered down” test of whether “potential” opportunities for open-air recreation existed and ordered that the boundary be redrawn to exclude Hinton Park. Following the ruling, parliament passed the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which amended the 1949 Act and specifically allowed for the “watered down” test. Counsel for the present secretary of state, David Miliband, argued that even if Sullivan J had been correct, the appeal court should use its discretion not to quash the designation order because there would be little point in requiring the secretary to redraw the boundary when the law had now changed to allow the original designation. Dismissing the appeal Lord Justice Chadwick said that the judge was correct to hold that on the material before the secretary of state the criterion of “opportunities for open-air recreation” had not been met. Furthermore, while the law had now changed it was not self evident that the inspector had explained why he took the view that the opportunities for open air recreation had gone beyond “vague or unrealistic aspirations”.